I knew that Hitchens is an equal-opportunity hater, but I had no idea that he believes Juanita. That was a stunner. Another shocker was placement of national honor before national security in his indictment of Hillary's recent attempt to re-write her positions on Iraq. Honor, never mind national honor, just seems like one of those quaint notions that's so out of style these days, and yet Hitchens here gives it at least equal importance with security.

I was just about to express sympathy for Hitchens, who is obviously having trouble supporting any of the presidential candidates (of either party). Then I realized that I'm in the same position, and I don't get to write hilariously scathing columns out of it.

She has a friend that testifies that Broderick told her the day it supposedly happened that Bill Clinton raped her. I saw her, the friend, interviewed on televisiontestifying to this. Of course, both the friend and Broderick could be lying, but contemporaneous corroboration is usually considered a big deal. This is not us simply seeing a woman, Broderick, saying, "Bill Clinton raped me some years ago."

Yeah, let's rehash the old hyperbole and falsehoods from the rabid right wingers back in the Clinton years.

Sounds like a blast. Someone dust off Ken Starr.

How about if we find a better reason to oppose Hillary? The "anti-oligarchy" vote. All Americans who don't believe our Presidency should be passed back and forth between two power families for 28 years or more, raise your hands!

AlphaLiberal said..."Yeah, let's rehash the old hyperbole and falsehoods from the rabid right wingers back in the Clinton years. ... How about if we find a better reason to oppose Hillary? ... Can we get bipartisan support for this basic concept?"

Hard to imagine President Hillary Clinton would allow President Bill Clinton's problems with sex to get back into the Oval Office.

While I do expect a lot of questionable things from the Clintons, I think that Meade has this right - Bill will be on a somewhat short leash, at least in the White House. Remember, she would be the one this time to whom the Secret Service, White House security, et al. ultimately report, not him.

Harsh Pencil said... Why is Juanita Broderick unbelievable? She has a friend that testifies ... I saw her, the friend, interviewed on televisiontestifying to this."

And that boys and girls is the issue in a nutshell. Testified on TV? Didn't you mean "appeared on TV" and just put it out there. I didn't see where she was cross examined on TV by a defense counsel. I didn't see you reference the rape charges against Bill Clinton (ohhh? there weren't any?) Just curious how that works. He raped her supposedly and she goes public and a friend steps up and says "yeah..what she said" and bingo.

You guys are loonies who are now and forever chasing the Clintons. You must throw up pea soup and your little heads must spin around.

You blame the Clintons for everything from your EDS to your being late to the line where they passed out brains. Moreover it is that consuming hatred, that ability to have any crap shoveled down your throat and you gulp it like pablum, that is dividing this country.

if Hillary is elected and that is a far better chance than the apes you have running on the right hand side of science and religion, you will remount all the crap into your little cap pistols and fire away endlessly.

What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?

Obviously Hitchens misses the central issue of the Clinton cult of Personality. The 90’s were good times, relative peace, booming prosperity and Islamic terrorism was still in it’s ‘nuisance stage’. Bill was generally loved though out the world (except in Serbia, Iraq and Sudan who felt his wrath when aroused….no pun intended). The 90’s were good times and whether its deserved or not, Clinton gets credit for it, goes with the territory.

Simply put it boils down to the fact that the expectations for the social mores of a President are pretty low on the list of qualifications. Don’t get me wrong, no one wants a complete cad in the office but lying about your namesake and having a hubby who can’t keep his schlong in his pants for 5 minutes in the presence of a semi-attractive female I don’t think rank as candidacy killers.

My biggest beef with Bill Clinton was his kick the can foreign policy which essentially turned a blind eye to North Korea, Iran, Islamic terrorism, talking tough with Saddam but doing nothing, (Africa was a disaster on his watch too hdhouse) although to most people none of that matters until there’s a smoking crater somewhere in the USA.

So yeah Hitchens, to a lot of people, Clinton lied but not as many people died (Americans anyway) and the world loved us and the economy was good and the budget was balanced and there wasn’t a housing crisis and the dollar was on top. So while people may not like Clinton, they remember the Clinton years were good ones for the most part and think they might be able to re-live those time vicariously through the Hillary!

AlphaLiberal said... Yeah, let's rehash the old hyperbole and falsehoods from the rabid right wingers back in the Clinton years.

but Christopher Hitchens is not a rabid right winger. If Hillary is elected President, Bill Clinton will essentially be back in the Oval Office--remember he and Hill at two for the price of one. Of course this time there will be no sex in the Oval Office. Not enough of a reason to give the Clintons another term or two.

hdhouse saidMoreover it is that consuming hatred, that ability to have any crap shoveled down your throat and you gulp it like pablum, that is dividing this country.

and then:if Hillary is elected and that is a far better chance than the apes you have running on the right hand side of science and religion, you will remount all the crap into your little cap pistols and fire away endlessly.

funny how your "go to" commentators all seem to be hacks like hitchens

Easy one, since they have absolutely no new ideas, and the ideas they do have are universally unpopular, they have no choice but to focus like lasers on classic pseudo-scandals like the Lincoln Bedroom. Of course the press corps never told you 2/3 of the visitors gave no money at all!, or the fact 72 of the visitors were sleepovers with Chelsea. Nor is it acceptable to detail visitors in the Bush White House. That's a waste of taxpayer money, and really none of our business.

My point was not to rehash the issue of whether Bill or Broderick was lying. It was Joan, apparently a Hillary support, who implied that Hitchens must be a nut because he believed Broderick. I just wanted to correct the record: it is not obvious that Broderick is lying to such an extent that anyone who believes her is a nut. So again, I wasn't bringing the evidence in Broderick's favor in order to attack Bill or Hillary, but to defend Hitchens.

hd-Nobody is blaming the Clintons for our problems. I think people generally agree that life was relatively good in the 90s. I'm not sure where you get the ED/tardiness thing from. Projecting?

I think the Clintons are being blamed for problems of their own doing. The Lincoln bedroom stuff, the women problem, the calculated lying. These are not our problems but theirs. I think the arguement is that the Clinton's should not be re-elected on the grounds that they're terrible people. As individuals. Maybe that's not convincing, but no need to go crazy-go-nuts on us.

I knew that Hitchens is an equal-opportunity hater, but I had no idea that he believes Juanita.

Juanita was describing an incident that happened 20 years previously -- she could well have goofed up some details, or wondered if it really happened as well.

The problem Clinton's accusers had was that even the staunchest feminist would have delighted had Bill wanted to jump her bones -- he was the anti-Packwood. Therefore they all would have given Bill the benefit of the doubt on consent.

Wow, I actually agree totally with alphaliberal so I raise my hand. If we are going to indulge our dynastic tendencies we can certainly do better than choosing between the offspring of Jethro Bodine or Miss Hathaway. Of course the only surviving descendant of Thomas Jefferson is Lionel who is currently running a string of drycleaners in Vegas.

Bill Clinton has eight years experience in the top slot. He's been there.

Firstly: we are not electing Bill as President. Even though if Hillary wins, he will tag along like Cousin Eddie to accompany Hillary on her "Griswold's take the White House" adventure part deux.

Secondly: Yea...just look where all that experience got us when the build up to AQ attacking us was on Bill's watch. Unfortunately for us he was watching something else.

Why isn't the article called A case against Hillary rather than The case?

Well, because this is just one of many cases that can be made against Hillary. I prefer the one where she is a socialists who plans to spend and tax us into oblivion to accomplish her goal of "taking things away from you for the common good". NO thanks. I'll just keep my hard earned things.

I also prefer the one that points out that the Clinton's are classic sociopaths. Just what we need one narcissistic sociopath and the other with delusions of grandeur on a mission both back in control of our lives.

George Washington of course did not leave any heirs of his body. The descendants of James Monroe and James Madison have also died out. The last politically viable relative of JKF is currently giving a reach around to Hugo Chavez. Amy Carter is currently building houses for the Sandinistas so she is way too busy. The only possible candidate who is currently available is a direct lineal descendant of Andrew Jackson. Unfortunately that would be Britney Spears.

Juanita was describing an incident that happened 20 years previously -- she could well have goofed up some details, or wondered if it really happened as well.

I don't get that sentence... are you saying Juanita herself may be unsure if she was raped? Please explain; I am probably misreading.

The problem Clinton's accusers had was that even the staunchest feminist would have delighted had Bill wanted to jump her bones -- he was the anti-Packwood. Therefore they all would have given Bill the benefit of the doubt on consent.

A feminist who sides with Bill over his accusers is likely a Leftist first, and a feminist second. And a lousy one at that.

I think it would be understandable--and proper-- to withhold judgement against Bill, if there weren't such a string of credible accusers in his wake. But there are, and feminists should have withdrawn their support from the Clintons long ago.

I'll bet I'm not the only moderate independent voter who would seriously consider voting for Hillary if only she were able to convincingly demonstrate to me that she would 1) never again enable sexual harassment and 2) be a trustworthy commander-in-chief. But to do that I think she'd have to seek some sort of professional help. I earnestly hope she does.

knoxwhirled said... .."to withhold judgement against Bill, if there weren't such a string of credible accusers in his wake. But there are, and feminists should have withdrawn their support from the Clintons long ago."

and these people would be who? just a short list of credible people would be helpful..not a lot of detail...just some names.

and to your concluding sentence - how about a sentence like "all americans should have pulled the rug on bush the first time he lied"...but i won't write such a sentence...don't tell others what to do or think. suggest away. support with facts away. thank you.

Hey Meade: didnt WJC employ Jesse Jackson for spiritual counseling following his string of hummers from Ms. L? Given the Rev's sexual exploits, I would love to have been a fly on the wall as they shared their experiences.

Betsey Wright is an American political consultant who worked more than a decade for Bill Clinton in Arkansas. She was Chief of Staff to Governor Clinton for seven years. In the 1990s, she was Senior Director of The Wexler Group.

In 1990, Wright was elected chair of the Democratic Party of Arkansas and was hired as its Executive Director.

While serving as a 1992 fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, Wright led a seminar of “High Tech Politics.” She resigned to return to Arkansas to join the Clinton presidential campaign.

Among her previous positions, Wright was Executive Director of the National Women’s Education Fund in Washington, DC. While there, she designed, organized and conducted training programs throughout the country for women candidates, campaign managers, and officeholders.

Oh c'mon Meade, get your mind out of the gutter. Lay your facts out with a credible link -- or let me guess, you don't have a link and this is yet another Clinton smoke and mirrors "scandal" where there is no evidence.

Before their marriage in October 1975, Hillary entered into intense discussions with friends on the question of whether a woman could establish her own strong identity and an independent life within a marriage. Her model, she told friend Ann Henry, was Eleanor Roosevelt. Having just finished a biography of the famous first lady, Henry replied with a note of caution: "That's right, but Eleanor never found her voice until that marriage was over -- until she didn't care about the marriage."

hdlouse said...You guys are loonies who are now and forever chasing the Clintons. You must throw up pea soup and your little heads must spin around.

Ah, thank you Mr. Louse. I just thought my dislike for Mrs. Clinton was based on her lack of experience and her mediocre record as a Senator and lawyer. I did not realize it was because my head was spinning.

This is the typical Clinton strategy at work. Insult, demean, and demonize critics of Saint Hillary. Refer to people as lunatics and opponents as apes.

Nothing like intelligent, cogent, and logical debate; something foreign to people like you Mr. Louse. Now I know why your mother named you Stupid Putz.

hdlouse said... and these people would be who? just a short list of credible people would be helpful..not a lot of detail...just some names.

Mr. Putz,When you are not throwing around demeaning childish insults around, you are demanding proof of everything. So, I demand proof that all people who do not support and/or criticize the Clintons are lunatics, dumb, trite, apes, or any of the other school yard names you have spewed and bandied about.

Please, Mr. Putz, show some proof, you know real proof- Mydd, KOS, and DU do not count. Are there psychological, psychiatric, or social science journals to back up your clams? Have there been any empirical studies to provide evidence?

Mr. Putz, you are a hater. You are so consumed by your hatred of moderate and conservative people- not ideas- but people that you have lost all sense of reality. You are a sick individual. This is an form of intervention and I would really like to help you. Please, Mr. Putz, for your own sake, seek professional help. There are some very good drugs for people like you. Over time, with analysis and medication, you may be able to join the world of normal, sane people.

I don't get that sentence... are you saying Juanita herself may be unsure if she was raped? Please explain; I am probably misreading.

When I wrote that I couldn't understand why she would have written and signed an affidavit saying Bill never assaulted her, unless her memory was fuzzy. After reviewing what happened, I now think she lied in her affidavit, simply didn't want to get caught in the Clinton meat grinder again.

Hitchens makes you want to choose a side; Cohen makes you want to go back to sleep. Perhaps that was Cohen's intent: to lull us into believing Obama was an unknown quantity while Hillary is steady as she goes.

My point was not to rehash the issue of whether Bill or Broderick was lying. It was Joan, apparently a Hillary support, who implied that Hitchens must be a nut because he believed Broderick.

I'm not a Hillary supporter. I was just surprised that someone as skeptical as Hitchens, who has written entire books about God not existing and how we're all dupes to believe otherwise, believes Juanita Broderick and the rest of the Clinton accusers.

How does saying I was surprised imply that Hitchens is crazy? One can be pleasantly surprised, you know.

Actually, there is a need. The hatred against the Clintons demonstrated in the 1990s and continuing to this day was based on fallacies, lies, smears and "bearing false witness" from the religious hypocrites of the right.

Remember Jerry Falwell and others saying Clinton was running cocaine into the country?

Or what you guys subjected Vince Foster's poor family to?

On and on it went. The great Whitewater scandal which amounted to nothing having to do with the Clintons. The salacious Starr Chamber report.

From the right wing comes a steady stream of hate and lies. And it's picking up again.

You have the gall to say this: "the calculated lying" while Bush and Cheney and Rove ("Dems made Bush invade Iraq") have broken the record books for lying, and not about harmless blow jobs.

So, yeah, fuck you guys. You deserve all the shame and defeat you have coming.

BTW, I, and many liberals, did not like the Clintons. If the right wing had not constantly been on the attack trying to drive them from the White House, you would have seen a traditional Democratic circular firing squad.

In an odd way the lying haters of the right helped Clinton hold his party base together, even as he delivered more on YOUR agenda than ours.

Uh oh--I feel the vapors coming on: going to agree with alpha liberal re the nature of President Clinton's policies. He was much more centrist than I suspect his wife would be and he had the good sense to make Robert Rubin treasury secretary rather than Robert Reich.

Madawaskan: First the obligatory "I am not a genocide supporter..." But I think it is indeed situations like Rwanda, and Darfur, that really highlight the limits of American power--I can't see putting US troops into those regions; meaningful intervention looks like a pretty tough task on the ground. So while I deplore genocide I also appreciate the realpolitik issues, and am glad we did not involve ourselves. (Somalia provides an interesting study in intervention)

Alpha-I didn't vote for Bush in 04 and I wouldn't vote for him now if he was running. Please cover your mouth when you sneeze.

As best I can read you, your support for Sen Clinton can be summed up as, "Nuh-uh. It's not true. Or if it is true, at least it's not as bad as Bush." It's as though you want to support Sen Clinton just to stick it to the GOP. Out of spite.

What kinda brain dead rabid uber-Geo-Pee-R hangs his evidence hat on Juanita or Jennifer or Paula?

What kinda of stupidity leads someone to believe that Bill told Hillary to go out and lie for him?

You are, flatly stated, what is evil and wrong with politics in this country. You want to believe what you want to believe so bad that you have zero perspective. Your fact check is Rush and Wiki. Your sense of history is so distorted by blind hatred and probably fear that you can't and won't think straight.

Remember the movie Mississippi Burning? when gene hackman goes to that little social club over the barber shop and grabs the guy by the balls and then stares down the deputy? when the deputy was scared shitless and his eyes rolled around in his head like bb's in a nickel hand game where you rolled them into a hole.

Um, well, you, hdlouse. You are a sick puppy. Only a sick puppy would defend this dysfunctional couple. Only a sick puppy would believe that Bill did not ask Hillary to go out and lie for him; she has been doing it during his whole political career. The only stupidity here are those who believe otherwise. What do you hang your evidence on? Bill Clinton is a serial adulterer. Bill Clinton is a liar. Bill Clinton would ask his wife to lie for him.

The only evil in this debate on politics is you and your ilk. You people are deranged. You are so blinded by your love for the Left and hatred of anything else that you have lost all perspective. There is only one opinion, and it is yours. You people are dangerous.

You insult those who disagree with you, but like a true Liberal progressive, when you are insulted back you cannot take it. You complain about the insults. You can dish it out but cannot take it. But that is part of the platform isn’t it. That is the creed of the Liberal progressive; demonize, marginalize, demean, and insult. Is that because you are children of the universe? You sure are not an adult.